Technology Drives the World Toward War

Technology has changed the old “balance of terror.” The missiles of today are much more accurate than before. So they are not just aimed at cities anymore. A great many of them are aimed at other missiles. Vastly improved computer-controlled guidance systems have caused the change in targeting. The result? Mutual Assured Destruction has been replaced in military thinking with counterforce strategies in which, theoretically, nuclear wars are no longer deterred but fought and won.

But how can either side hope to win a nuclear war? By striking first and destroying not an enemy’s cities but his missiles. Then, according to the theory, the enemy is at the mercy of the side striking first and must submit to whatever ultimatum is imposed.

Does this kind of thinking sound dangerous to you? It does to many experts. “The more the two great powers come to rely on counterforce strategies the greater is the probability of nuclear world war,” says Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “The dilemma of the nuclear age is that, despite the desire of political leaderships to avoid such a war, we are being driven towards it by uncontrolled military technology.”

During the 1980’s, as more and more missiles are made accurate enough for counterforce use, the world will get more and more dangerous. As the New York Times pointed out, Robert McNamara, U.S. secretary of defense back in the 1960’s, “opposed making American nuclear forces capable of threatening Soviet ones. If one or both the superpowers thought its missiles had become vulnerable to a surprise attack, he argued, pressures for launching them in a crisis would become almost irresistible.” Mr. McNamara’s nightmare is nearing reality.

Could counterforce thinking really help to drive the world to war? Recent history argues that it certainly could. Consider the aftermath of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 in which the United States, Japan and Great Britain agreed to limit their construction of battleships. Rather than stopping the arms race, the treaty “encouraged the emergence of the aircraft carrier, a new weapon neglected by the battleship admirals then dominating every major navy,” observes political science professor Charles Fairbanks. “As Pearl Harbor made clear, the aircraft carrier was a weapon that, as compared with the battleship, encouraged striking first in a crisis, and therefore somewhat increased the chances of war.”

Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were vulnerable to enemy attack because of not possessing the thick armor of battleships and being loaded with gasoline. Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were very effective when used by the side striking the first blow with its planes, while keeping the carrier itself at a safe distance. In 1941, as relations deteriorated between the United States and Japan, the pressure to get in the first blow became irresistible to the Japanese. What will happen if relations continue to deteriorate between the United States and the Soviet Union? Will history repeat itself?

Lasers, Satellites and False Alarms

Not once but three times in less than a year a computer reported that Soviet missiles were headed toward America. Immediately the crews of FB-111 and B-52 bombers started their engines, while the U.S. fleet of nuclear submarines was placed on alert, as were the crews of America’s 1,000 Minuteman missile silos. Each time, the computer report was found to be false. Twice the erroneous alert was traced to a small, 46-cent electronic circuit. The bombers, submarines and missile crews were told to stand down . . . until next time.

“What is failing here is not gadgetry, but sanity,” commented the New York Times. Some military men no longer feel that they can afford to wait until suspected missiles actually arrive before retaliating. As a result, the danger of false alarms provoking genuine counterattacks is growing. In the jumpy world of counterforce thinking, World War III could start simply by mistake. Not very reassuring, is it?

Technology is destabilizing the military world in other ways as well. Here are a few of them:

Submarine Warfare: Not only are land-based missiles becoming accurate enough to destroy other missiles, but submarine missiles, such as those for America’s new Trident fleet, are acquiring the same high accuracy. Also, both the United States and the Soviet Union are working hard on all types of antisubmarine sensors and “hunter-killer” submarines. But what if nuclear submarines should become vulnerable to a “first strike”? “The temptation to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike will then become well nigh irresistible,” according to Dr. Barnaby.

Satellite Warfare: Satellites are the eyes and ears of today’s military establishments. In this jittery age they provide the earliest possible warning of enemy missile launches, as well as make verification possible for arms treaties. Between 70 and 80 percent of all military communications are now routed through satellites. Since satellites are becoming so important, “an attack on a nation’s satellites would almost surely lead to an all-out nuclear strike since its intelligence-gathering capability would be crippled,” according to some observers. Is such an attack possible?

“Off and on over the past 12 years, the Soviet Union has orbited at least 15 hunter-killer satellites,” says a report in Science 80 magazine. The United States, in turn, is developing an antisatellite missile that can be fired from an F-15 fighter. Especially ominous are new types of weapons that could instantly blind or destroy satellites even in very distant orbits. What kinds of weapons are these?

Science Fiction? Think Again

If you think the idea of a ray gun that could destroy a missile in flight is part of science fiction, think again. Such weapons already exist! Since 1973 lasers have been knocking planes and missiles out of the air in tests. The United States Air Force has equipped a cargo plane with a massive experimental laser beam for tests at high altitudes. Over a billion dollars has been spent by the Americans alone on laser-weapon development, and it is claimed that the Soviets are equally advanced.

True, it might be a long time before a ground-based laser beam could shoot down a high-altitude satellite. Such a laser would require enormous amounts of energy. On the other hand, “much more modest amounts of energy . . . can blind the infrared sensors of a satellite,” observes New Scientist magazine, “leaving your opponent with no way to monitor the launch of your missiles.” Lasers with this much power are already quite feasible, adding another uncertainty to a nervous world.

Of course, this by no means exhausts the list of destabilizing advances in military technology. Cruise missiles, which, although slow, are far more accurate than any ICBM, can be considered a counterforce weapon. They are well suited to attack small military targets. A “neutron bomb” has been designed to kill people with radiation while destroying relatively little property. New, “improved” nerve gas is being advocated by some military authorities, although nerve gas has been outlawed in warfare since 1925! There is also talk of Biological Warfare, using germs such as anthrax. But technology is not the only thing pushing the world toward World War III.